JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

CHALLENGE IN BOTH THE CIVIL REVISIONS:-

1. This order shall dispose of two civil revisions in which challenge is to the common order dated 15.10.2016 vide which the objections filed by the Judgment Debtors i.e., owner and driver of the vehicle in question, in the execution proceedings have been dismissed. CR- 8138-2016 titled as “Super Wood Crafts (P) Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another”, has been filed by the owner and CR-2727-2017 has been filed by the driver of the vehicle in question.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S):-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in both the revision petitions have submitted that in the present case, vide award dated 24.04.2000, the MACT Gurgaon had awarded an amount of Rs.65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation and had further imposed cost of Rs.1000/-. It is submitted that although, the Insurance Company had filed an appeal i.e., FAO-1895-2000 on 25.07.2000 and the said appeal was decided on 14.01.2014 and the execution petition was filed on 16.03.2016, but respondent No.1-Insurance Company should have deposited the amount within a period of 12 years from 24.04.2000 and should have also filed execution proceedings within the said time. It is submitted that since the same was not done, thus, the execution filed by the Insurance Company on 16.03.2016 is barred by limitation and it was to the said effect that the objections were filed which have been wrongly dismissed by the Executing Court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1-INSURANCE COMPANY:-

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company has submitted that since respondent No.1-Insurance Company was given recovery rights as per award dated 24.04.2000, the Insurance Company had the statutory right to file an appeal, which was statutorily filed on 25.07.2000 bearing FAO No.1895 of 2000. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that the said appeal was dismissed on 14.01.2014 and thus, the doctrine of merger applied and the Insurance Company had a right to file execution within a period of 12 years from 14.01.2014 and since the Insurance Company had filed execution petition within the said time, thus, the same is not time barred and the objections filed by the Judgment Debtors are frivolous and have been rightly dismissed by the impugned order. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad and others, reported as 2004(8) SCC 724. It is thus, prayed that both the revision petitions be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

5. The facts of the present case are not in dispute. The claimants had filed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Case No.111 on 28.08.1998 in which Surender Singh was impleaded as respondent No.1, Super Wood Crafts (P) Ltd. was impleaded as respondent No.2 and National Insurance Company Limited was impleaded as respondent No.3. The said MACT case was decided on 24.04.2000, although the copy of the award passed in the present case has not been annexed with the paper book but during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted a copy of the entire award which is taken on record and marked as Mark “A”. Relevant portion of the said award is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“M.A.C.T. Case No. 111 of 28.08.1998

Decided on: 24.04.2000

1. Smt. Janki Devi widow, 2. Raj Kumari, 3. Mithlesh Devi, 4. Sajan Devi. 5. Anita Devi, 6. Sunita Devi, daughters of Rama Nand Chaudhary alias Biju Chaudhary, all residents of Mohd Pur Sakra, Bhai Dal Singh Sarai, Tehsil Rosra, Police Station Bibhutipur, District Samastipur (Bihar). ..Petitioners.

Versus

1. Surender Singh son of Shri Chhaju Ram resident of Village Indri, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon (driver of truck no.HR